dcaufandomcom-20200222-history
DC Animated Universe talk:Manual of Style
Discuss style issues here. --BoneGnawer 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :I like 1.2 Appearances a lot more. Less sloppy and more professional indeed. ― ThailogTalk ::Ok, I'm not totally opposed to it, but some considerations: ::1. Appearances is a top-level section in a character article, so "Appearances" gets one equals sign, and each series title should get two, but I think 3 is more appropriate so no horizontal lines are drawn. ::2. We link the series titles ::3. How do we list movies? i.e. Mask of the Phantasm, Brainiac Attacks, etc. ::--BoneGnawer 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) *Easily. MOP and SZ are Batman (first series), MOTB is Batman the new series, Brainiac Attacks is Superman TAS. Basically, relying on the style and time it takes place. --'Redemption'Talk 01:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Apperance Styles So here we have a dilema. The apperances section looks sloppy the way it is (the way the section is, four equal signs, ignore it): Appearances * STAS: A Fish Story * JL: The Enemy Below * JL: The Terror Beyond * JL: Hereafter * JLU: Initiation * JLU: Ultimatum * JLU: Dark Heart * JLU: Wake the Dead * BB: The Call While the format that I have made makes it more organized and neat without the constant usage of "JLU" or "JL". Appearances Superman: The Animated Series * A Fish Story Justice League * The Enemy Below * The Terror Beyond * Hereafter Justice League Unlimited * JLU: Initiation * Ultimatum * Dark Heart * Wake the Dead Batman Beyond * The Call So...anyone want to give some input? --'Redemption'Talk 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :I already said I'm down with your style. I'm just waiting for TPTB to pass their judgment... But being the only three active members here, it makes things run slowly... ― ThailogTalk Character Template I'd like to contest this per what I proposed [[Template_talk:Character|'here']]. * All information should be filled out. **Unnecessary. This was only because the fields appeared regardless; with optional fields, we should only fill out what's seen or established on the show. *Any information in the character template that has not been shown in the DCAU may be conjectured from DC Comics sources. **Only for some exceptional areas. This criterion basically allows us to assume that some character's background is the same one from the comics, if not stated on the show, which is absurd. Many characters that appear together on the show were featured on different Ages of the comics, and thus, did not co-exist. We should keep main articles the most in-universe as possible. I don't mind including Black Mass's real name on the Character box, but it should be clearly noted on the article that such information is conjectured from the DC Comics, and not verifiable on the DCAU. If we resort to DC Comics sources every time we don't have information about someone's relatives, or even eye color, without noting it, we are misleading the readers into thinking that such facts were somehow established on the show. Background and Comics information must be clearly separated from the DCAU canon. *Information not available from DCAU or DC Comics sources should be noted as "unknown" (quotes should not appear in the article). **Information deemed "unknown" is redundant, and therefore should be omitted. ― Thailog 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) :: I agree wholeheartedly. With the addition of the optional fields, the template can be expanded to almost all characters. I'm not even sure DC real names should be included. The only thing I think is justified to take from DC Comics is article names (like Black Mass, Thinker, and the many other background characters whose names we do not know), and even then, it should be noted on the page somewhere that the name wasn't mentioned onscreen.--Tim Thomason 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ::: Good. However, we still need written guidelines... Some people think it's "interesting" to list those characters' real names on the boxes; I, however, find it totally irrelevant and meaningless. If the names are not mentioned on the show, then it's completely irrelevant to have them posted, because it does not add anything to the site. The infoboxes are supposed to be a quick way of delivering information about a character, and if our main purpose if a condensed DCAU then that's the kind of information that should be listed there. All the rest, if in any way relevant, should be posted under "Background information". ― Thailog 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC) *I'm not sure if we've reached a consensus, but we need to sort these things out and update the Manual of Style. ― Thailog 14:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Tense To clarify, we're presenting this from an in universe perspective, assuming the events have already happened, correct? I ask because I've seen several articles written in present tense, rather than past/past progressive, and the MoS doesn't explicitly state "past tense" (though that's the nature I've assumed we're writing under). - NakedSamurai 01:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) :Yeah, I always write articles in that tense for the very same reason. We definitely need to include that on the MoS. ― Thailog 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Why is the first description line (the first explanation on the page) frequently written in present tense? I know I've been writing it that way because that's how the majority of the articles I'd looked at before I began writing were presented, but it's something that's bothered me. That's supposed to be in-universe as well, and thus past tense, right? - NakedSamurai 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC) :Yeah, usually I did that for characters that were still alive ("Wonder Woman is an Amazon princess..." etc) but upon deciding to go with the past tense, we do need to change present tense from the first explanations as well. ― Thailog 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ::This discussion coupled with our image selection discussion brings up an interesting point... Should we be writing every article as if we are living in the DCAU circa 2980 A.D. (with knowledge of all the alternate timelines and universes), or should we be writing from the a point just after the last appearance of the character or subject in question? --BoneGnawer 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) :::That's an issue I've been tossing around for awhile now. Here's the only real reason it matters: with the exception of the LSH and the F5, everyone else would have to be (if nothing else) presumed deceased. Since we have no way of knowing exactly when every character died, it seems silly to write "deceased" at the end of every article. Right now, we're only even putting "presumed deceased" or "it's unknown if s/he died during the (event)" on characters we're uncertain of, which reduces the number to something like 5 verifiable deaths overall. - NakedSamurai 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I know what you mean. It's very complicated. Saying that "Batman was a Gotham City vigilante" is correct, because the last time we saw him chronologically, he had passed on the mantle of Batman to Terry. But saying he is a Gotham City vigilante isn't wrong either because the last time we literally saw him in he was still a Gotham City vigilante... should we be writing from the a point just after the last appearance of the character or subject in question? Maybe this should be the best alternative. If we write from a POV where everything has happened, then everybody most likely died, and no one is anything anymore. For some characters, referring to them in the Past Tense may imply that he or she is dead, which is misleading because we have to grounds to sustain that inference. ― Thailog 11:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC) :Then let's clarify: are we speaking of the last chronological appearance or the last televised one? :To me, there's a difference. The last televised appearance of Superman has him a member of the Justice League. The last chronological appearance has him a member of the Justice League Unlimited in 2050. The latter seems to make more sense (and is likely the condition the majority of us have been working under) if you ask me. - NakedSamurai 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ::We definitely need to sort this out because it’s getting confusing. Doesn't that (writing in correlation to the last chronological appearance) mean that the image on the infobox, for example, should reflect that appearance, as opposed to the most recognizable one (which we all have agreed upon)? Taking from your example, if we write an article taking in consideration the last chronological appearance, wouldn’t Superman’s introductory paragraph have to emphasize that he is a JLU member, because that’s what he was the last time we saw him chronologically? Shouldn’t the image on the infobox be that of his elder self? I'm not saying it should — I'm pointing out a possible loophole to our current conventions. ― Thailog 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC) :::I'd always treated the infobox as supplemental material, the statistical information a person is looking for. A picture is included with that, but because it's not directly in the article it doesn't have to reflect the person's last chronological appearance. Instead, it's something that can focus on the most recognizable image to the audience. For some characters (mostly Batman) this requires some liberty, but due to our other established rules we can make the choice appropriately. :::I consider pictures outside the infobox part of the article. Since we typically try to recount events in a chronological fashion, the in-article images usually reflect something along the lines the particular section is describing (not to overuse a character, but Hawkgirl is a great example). If a character has multiple age versions (Batman, Superman, and Static), the appropriate age picture coordinates with that information. :::Whether we treat the characters as living or dead individuals, their actions have already happened, which makes them in the past. The infobox picture, to me, should be from the era we have the most information from. - NakedSamurai 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (for some reason, I was logged out, and I added that under my IP address) ::::Thinking on this, I think I've come up with a few good rules of thumb: # The introductory paragraph and infobox picture should be written/taken from the point of view of the series where the character has the most appearances. example: Terry McGinnis' infobox pic is taken from , Static's is taken from . Exceptions may be made according to consensus. (for example, I think it would be just as vaild for Batman or Superman's pic to come from , , , or . However, I don't think it would make sense for them to come from ). # The History section of the main body of the article should describe the character from the first cronological appearance through the last chronological appearance. # Following the History section, there should be Alternate Timeline and Alternate Universe sections where appropriate. If an alternate timeline/universe version is a significant character in its own right, it should be separated into its own article. example: Savage Time Batman remains a section in the Batman article, but each of the Justice Lords get their own article. ::::--BoneGnawer 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :::::Yes. Very yes. The only point of contention I see would be Batman (or any revamped Batman rogue) appearing with the BTAS look, since we've established we prefer to use the revamped look for infobox pics in some other section The we need to be consistent. If #1, then we can't carry on the rule that states each character should feature it's most recent likeness. The Penguin and Catwoman were in more episodes than in 's, so their pics in the infobox should, according to this rule, be taken from . ― Thailog 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :I don't know if I consider that rule a matter of consistency. However, we could simply add the following clause to that first rule: "In the cases of Batman characters, images from TNBA are preferred for stylistic reasons." Probably useful because characters from GG appeared most frequently in that show, and with the first rule unmodified we would be using those images for the bio...but I think it's safe to say the art of TNBA is better quality than GG (not to knock the latter series). - NakedSamurai 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ::We need to reach a consensus, either way. I hate when discussions get hold on hiatus. I don't mind changing the "most recent picture of a character on the infobox". It made sense on some occasions, like the TNBA revamped characters, but not on characters like Supergirl, who only sports a new uniform on 2 out of 14 episodes... It's like putting a pic of Faust as a floating head... I could go with "infobox picture should be taken from the series where the character has the most appearances" and reserve exceptions according to consensus, but we need to explain why the give preference to the revamped designs from TNBA. Otherwise we have a loophole. ― Thailog 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) :::We could say: :::*''For the purposes of determining which series a character has the most appearances in, BTAS and TNBA are considered one series.'' and :::*''The most recent character design in the series in question should be used unless consensus dictates otherwise.'' :::These statements give us a "rules framework" that conforms to what we've decided yet allows for exceptions. --BoneGnawer 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I like that. ― Thailog 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) :::::I like that as well. - NakedSamurai 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::Anyone would like to make the honors? ― Thailog 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Main Page Is it within the realm of possibilities to make a link to the MoS somewhere relatively visible on the main page? I've noticed a lot of new contributers (self inclusive, but even more recent unregistered contributers) don't write in the format presented here, and (from my own experience) I'm willing to blame ignorance (to an extent). I would never have found the MoS unless Thailog hadn't put the greeting on my UserTalk page, and since then I've corrected most of the initial mistakes I made. If a link were a little more apparent, I think newcomers would be more apt to read it right off the bat. At least, they'd have fewer reasons not to (aside from, y'know, laziness). - NakedSamurai 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) :Good point. DC Animated Universe:About is currently the first link on the page, however it redirects to DCAU. I think the About article needs to be rewritten to be a brief description of the purpose & scope of the wiki with links to DCAU:MOS as well as other policy pages. --BoneGnawer 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Quotes We do not cover character quotations within the MoS, but they're frequently used within articles. I know I try to put one quote into every article I write (and I'll use more if the article warrants it). They're fun and can be a nice way to provide some perspective about the character's personality. As far as I can tell, we have three different ways of setting up quotes: # A quote that lacks the character that spoke the quote. (as seen in here). # A quote which cites the character who said the quote (ala this article). # A quote that not only displays the character, but also references the episode and possibly who the quote was directed to (both examples here). I think it's important to decide upon a universal approach to this. While none of the options are incorrect, the articles would look more cohesive should they all appear to be formatted the same. - NakedSamurai 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :I agree that there should be one broad standard for quotes, but as I explain here, it seems pretty redundant to me to read a quote on a character guide, let's say Two-Face, and see the name of the speaker... Especially when they are in the first person. I still think the speaker should only be added (on character guides) in case of multiple speakers; or when someone else says it, obviously. I'm not sure about #3. Episode titles don't look good on these quotes, but they sure make it more professional. Maybe footnotes? ― Thailog 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::To revive an old concept that never seemed to have been resolved: For the sake of neatness, I can see having nothing after the quote. For the sake of scholarship, I can see including where it comes from. For no reason can I see including who said it when it is on the character's page.--MichaelMogg 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::I agree. But if we're gonna add where the quote is from, then we should do it via footnotes. Like so. ― Thailog 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Episode Manual I think the episode area leaves a lot to be desired in the consistency department. I propose the following sections (using this precise wording and order): *Plot **Act One **Act Two **Act Three *Continuity (this is for in-universe links to other episodes/series) *Background Information (For all things outside the universe) **Trivia **Production Inconsistencies *Cast *Quotes Also cast should use a set template. I can try to make one, but my wiki template skills are rudimentary at best.--MichaelMogg 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :I like it. Though we need to clarify how to break up multi-parters. ― Thailog 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ::Great stuff. We may still need a Episode Manual of Style, though. ― Thailog 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::Interesting idea, especially the set cast template. Now I do have one objection: the three acts. That makes sense if there is a multipart episode, however, if you are referring to where the spaces for commercials were placed, that can prove to be difficult for some episodes. All of the articles I've written are from the DVDs and some of the episodes don't have well designated acts. MrWhitman 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::::MrWhitman, the main purpose for the division into acts was functional. Long articles are rather daunting if not boring, the 'acts' were simply a way to break up the monotony, make it easier to navigate and edit. It was discussed here. After hearing the rationale, do you still object? --MichaelMogg 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ::::Actually it's easier than it seems: every time it fades to black — normally followed by a dramatic scene/cliffhanger — it's the end of one act and beginning of the next. That's where the episode would cut for a commercial break. ― Thailog 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC) :::::Not exactly, Thailog. Roughly, yes, but sometimes it fades to black more than two times, such as a dramatic pause before action happens. The three acts are more in line with predominate shifts in the direction of the story. ::::::And they're also pretty well in line with the commercial break fade-outs. I think it's a great idea - there might be certain exceptions (off the top of my head, I do think "Almost Got 'Im" works better as it is), but I have no objection. Caswin 04:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) :Maybe the Quotes section should be renamed to "Memorable quotes". ― Thailog 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ::That sounds ok, but I don't think it's necessary. My initial impetus for this style change was simply to get uniformity throughout the guides, whereas all the episodes use "Quotes" and there isn't a conflict or lack of consistency. That being said, I don't object to the change.--MichaelMogg 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) *Is the "Continuity" section supposed to be written in a in-universe perspective (without meta references)? 'Coz it may constitute a problem in some circumstances, like here. It's not always possible to write those without using "in the episode ...". ― Thailog 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) **Yeah, I can see that. Yikes. Fine by me. I suppose only plot is in-universe then.--MichaelMogg 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) *I think we can all agree that "Trivia" is too much narrow to include all real world information. In longer articles, it is useful and pertinent to separate trivia into other sections, such as "Cultural/Historical References", and others. The question is, are these stand alone "Background Information" sections, or are they sub-sections of the "Trivia" section? ― Thailog 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) :Hmm, yeah, that's quite a bit of information. I do feel that that is certainly a special case, being a full length film and the fact that they made alternate versions (didn't they?). I think the bulk of the episodes don't have these problems. That being, that doesn't touch on the heart of your question. I think 'Production Inconsistencies' should not be classified under 'Trivia', but CRs, the bit about the music video, and the comic book adaptation part should. The part about censorship is unique to this episode and I think we should try to do what is best for the guide instead of having rigid rules, so keep that section. Maybe put it under a sub-sub section of 'Production Notes'. (sorry if that was a bit unclear, it was kind of stream of consciousness.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMogg (talk • ) . ::I don't think you quite understood me. My question is: should we include sections like "Cultural References" as independent sections, or should they be subsections of the Trivia section? Background Information Trivia TEXT Cultural References TEXT or Background Information Trivia TEXT Cultural References (subsection of Trivia) TEXT It seems to me that "Cultural References" is a very specific type of "Trivia," so I don't see why it should be separated from the main Trivia section (or exist at all?). Here for example — does it need to be singled out as "Cultural References." Isn't "Trivia" enough? ― Thailog 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) :Sorry, I did understand, and I addressed it, but was perhaps unclear. I said, "I think 'Production Inconsistencies' should not be classified under 'Trivia', but CRs, the bit about the music video, and the comic book adaptation part should." By that I meant the CRs, Soundtrack, and Comic Book sections should fall under the Trivia section directly and not as a subsection. :I was trying to say that sub-dividing Trivia is only necessary when there are so many bits of information that if takes up more than a page. 'ROTJ' seems to be a rare case in point. To that end, maybe we could set a numerical value at which point we should sub-sub-divide Trivia. I think if we have too many subsections off the bat, it may seem a bit over-formatted. What do you think? :I was thinking about this further. Maybe in the MoS we should make it clearer that Trivia should collect all the information not directly linked to the show. By that I mean a CR is not really about the show per se, neither are DVD details or comic book info. Naturally, they are connected to some degree, but not as directly as production information, which I think should have its own section(s). :I hope all that is a bit clearer this time. Doh! Sorry, I forgot to sign my last entry.--MichaelMogg 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) ::So we're on the same page: Cultural References should be under the standard "Trivia" section and not on a different one, unless it's too long like in ROTJ, in which case we should subdivide it to facilitate navigation and readability. ― Thailog 00:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Episode Template The proposed template looks good to me; I would just add a few comments: one, the proposed three-act format strikes me as unnecessary, except for multi-part episodes; otherwise, it makes the reading cumbersome, and the effect can be accomplished just as well with paragraph breaks; two, the "Background Information" Section (including trivia and cultural references), since it refers to outside things, should have links to the main wikipedia whenever possible; three, the template should end with the episode browser box, telling the viewer where to find the next aired/produced episode; fourth and last, if and when a template is created, there should be a button or quick link to it, accessible to anyone wanting to write an episode summary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crouchbk (talk • ) . :I'm not sure what template you are referring to. I don't think there are any plans to change or make a new Episode Template. I don't like the idea of adding links to previous and next episodes in the Infobox. We should keep information to a minimum there. Besides, the more information we add to the infobox, the bigger it is, and the less images can we use in the article. I agree with your suggestion to add links to Wikipedia in the "Background Information" Section. ― Thailog 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :I can't understand why it's more cumbersome to break up the Plot section. It seems to me that long pages of text are more difficult to manage and navigate, and less pleasing to the eye. As for the Background Information, I think linking to Wikipedia is a nice added bonus, but I wouldn't make it a requirement, especially seeing how we aren't exactly connected to them in any way. Lastly, a template already exists for episode navigation, and is included in the Manual of Style. If we were to add navigation buttons somewhere along the top of the page, I would hope they would be small and non-invasive. As Thailog said, we should keep it as uncluttered as possible.--MichaelMogg 03:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)